Imagine Latin America Through a Federal Lens: Trapped in Underdevelopment by the Isolation of Our Borders

Latin America is often described as a region of immense potential. Yet potential alone has never built prosperity.

The region already provides a crucial share of what the world eats, consumes, and needs for the global energy transition. Latin America and the Caribbean supply between 15 and 25 percent of the food traded worldwide, around 20 percent of the world's hydroelectric clean energy, roughly 33 percent of the planet's available freshwater, a labor force of more than 330 million people, and a substantial share of strategic minerals, including about 60 percent of the world's known lithium resources and nearly 40 percent of global copper production.

Despite these advantages, an obvious paradox remains. Global powers rely on our resources, China for minerals, the United States for manufactured goods, Europe for energy, and yet we continue to act in a fragmented manner, allowing our collective potential to dissipate. This raises an uncomfortable question: what are we losing by failing to act as a unified bloc capable of shaping global affairs?

Not being an actor that helps define the rules of the game means accepting rules designed by others. In practice this translates into weaker bargaining power, structural dependence within global value chains, and a reactive position toward decisions that directly affect the region's development.

As a starting point, Latin America already possesses regional mechanisms for political and legal cooperation. However, these institutions lack a binding framework capable of genuinely coordinating and influencing the conduct of member states. The next step would be to deepen regional integration by establishing mandatory democratic standards for membership, accompanied by a judicial body with genuine enforcement powers. In other words, a Latin American Criminal Court.

But the story does not end there. Imagine a fragmented map in which each country combats drug trafficking in isolation. Some borders are heavily secured while others become open gateways, allowing criminal organizations to exploit legal and monetary differences to launder money and shift their operations wherever oversight is weakest. That is precisely the reality today.

Now imagine a federal framework that harmonizes legislation, narrows the opportunities for money laundering, establishes mandatory cooperation among national authorities, and creates a federal agency responsible for coordinating the fight against organized crime. Such a system would close the legal loopholes currently exploited by criminal networks, making it far more difficult for them to expand across borders, while strengthening the capacity to hold public officials accountable whenever they collaborate with drug trafficking organizations. We would confront organized crime, which already operates on a regional scale, with an equally regional institutional response. Which model would you choose? Which model do you think would be more efficient?

On the economic front, regional integration would also produce substantial benefits. It would promote the freer circulation of goods and capital, benefiting domestic businesses, and it would strengthen the region's economic autonomy by increasing its international bargaining power. As a consequence, third countries would be less inclined to impose politically motivated sanctions or tariffs because of the so-called bloc effect. Once a country belongs to a common market, measures directed against a single member risk escalating into a commercial dispute with the entire bloc, significantly increasing the political and economic costs of such actions.

Economic integration depends not only on trade rules but also on the physical infrastructure that allows goods, services, and capital to circulate efficiently. Without federal institutional architecture, investments in shared infrastructure, which are essential for increasing productivity, are likely to remain fragmented, subject to isolated governmental initiatives and changing political administrations, rather than guided by a long-term strategy for development and prosperity.

A federal union would make it possible to harmonize customs procedures and regulatory standards, reducing administrative costs and facilitating intra-regional trade. It would also enable the coordinated development of regional logistics corridors, such as the Andean Corridor and the Atlantic-Pacific Bi-Oceanic Corridor, alongside the creation of regional cohesion funds and joint public infrastructure programs aimed at reducing asymmetries among countries while improving the subcontinent's physical, energy, and commercial connectivity. Such measures would lay the foundations for sustained economic growth and deeper regional integration.

A federal approach would not erase national identities or abolish local governments. Instead, it would establish common institutions where collective action is indispensable.

As a concluding reflection, it is worth recalling the words of José Cecilio del Valle in his essay "The Abbot of Saint-Pierre Dreamed, and I Too Know How to Dream", which captures the significance of this debate:

Unity in time is what multiplies strength in great undertakings and ensures their success. It is what enables two people to possess greater power than a million. A thousand forces acting separately and at different moments are, in reality, only one. More than thirty forces acting together at the same moment are truly more than thirty. Hear these aspirations, Americans: Let there be a General Congress composed of representatives from every republic. Let each bring together political, economic, fiscal, and military matters so that, united, they may shape the common interests of all America. Such an institution would create a power capable of making America stronger against any aggression. It would empower weaker states and prevent divisions among our peoples, for every nation would know that behind it stands a federation to which all are accountable. Only then would America become what it is destined to be: as great as its continent, as rich as its resources, and as majestic as its mountain ranges.

And you? Can you imagine this project?

Will you be part of the change?

About the author

Nahuel Vecoli D'Angelo is a double degree student in Law and Political Science at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. He is a human rights activist and researcher, President of the Barcelona chapter of the United Nations Association for Human Rights (ANUEC), and an AIESEC alumnus in international development and SDG initiatives.